argument51 0806G加速度小组 by lilumilu

lilumiluUID: 2332310

TOPIC: ARGUMENT51 - The following appeared in a medical newsletter.

"Doctors have long suspected that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. This hypothesis has now been proved by preliminary results of a study of two groups of patients. The first group of patients, all being treated for muscle injuries by Dr. Newland, a doctor who specializes in sports medicine, took antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment. Their recuperation time was, on average, 40 percent quicker than typically expected. Patients in the second group, all being treated by Dr. Alton, a general physician, were given sugar pills, although the patients believed they were taking antibiotics. Their average recuperation time was not significantly reduced. Therefore, all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment."
WORDS: 461          DATE: 2008-1-16 21:51:20

From the argument above, the arguer recommends that all patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics since the hypothesis that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. In addition, the arguer makes assumption that taking the antibiotics is due to reducing the secondary infections and cites a study of two groups of patients to support his conclusion. However, with further scrutiny, the argument is not persuasive as it stands since the unwarranted assumption and lack of evidence.

Firstly, a gratuitous assumption upon which the recommendation relies is that muscle strain is necessarily due to secondary infections, in other words, the patients with muscle strain are necessarily due to with secondary infections. The arguer fails to provide any evidence about the causal relationship between muscle strain and secondary infections. If the assumption is unstable, the patients with muscle strain are not necessary to take antibiotics in order to reducing the secondary infections.

At the second place, the results of a study of two group of patients are questionable because of the flawed process of experiment. No data about the two groups of patients is provided. What kinds of people two group of patients consist of respectively? Is one group all female and another not? What about the age of these patients? Perhaps the first group consists of all males or adults and the second group is full of old women, which causes that the first group's recuperation time is 40 percent quicker than the latter one. In addition, the background of two doctors is different. It is possible that Dr.Newland has more experiences than Dr.Alton in muscle healing and the first group of patients get more effective cure.

Finally, even if we concede the unwarranted assumption and the questionable evidence,  it is still a hasty generalization that all the patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment without considering all the alternatives and factors. Are the antibiotics fit for all kinds of patients? What about the kids or elder? And are antibiotics harmful for pregnant women? In addition, some patients who are allergic to antibiotics should take other treatment rather than take antibiotics. In view of those alternatives, it is not a good treatment for all the patients with muscle strain to take antibiotics.

In sum, the argument is well-presented, but not throughly well-reasoned. Litter evidence is provided to support arguer's assumption and the results of a study of two group of patients are not persuasive as they stand. To strengthen his recommendation, the arguer should provide more evidence to prove the causal relationship between antibiotics and reducing secondary infections and more information about two groups of patients. Before considering all the alternatives and factors carefully, the recommendation is lack of credibilities.

雪梦无痕UID: 2447732

From the argument above(感觉有些别扭，可改成in the argument), the arguer recommends that all patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics since the hypothesis that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. In addition, the arguer makes assumption that taking the antibiotics is due to reducing the secondary infections and cites a study of two groups of patients to support his conclusion. However, with further scrutiny, the argument is not persuasive as it stands since(改成because of会不会更好些) the unwarranted assumption and lack of evidence.

Firstly, a gratuitous assumption upon which the recommendation relies is that muscle strain is necessarily due to secondary infections, in other words, the patients with muscle strain are necessarily due to with(?with是不是去掉) secondary infections. The arguer fails to provide any evidence about the causal relationship between muscle strain and secondary infections. If the assumption is unstable, the patients with muscle strain are not necessary to take antibiotics in order to reducing the secondary infections.

At the second place, the results of a study of two group（s） of patients are questionable because of the flawed process of experiment. No (specific)data about the two groups of patients is provided. What kinds of people two group of patients consist of(个人建议改成被动语态，我觉得这样顺口点) respectively? Is one group all female（s） and another not? What about the age of these patients? Perhaps the first group consists of all males or adults and the second group is full of old women, which causes(cause 后面用从句感觉别扭，改为which causes the first group's recuperation time 40 percent quicker than the latter one是不是更好？) that the first group's recuperation time is 40 percent quicker than the latter one. In addition, the background of two doctors is different. It is possible that Dr.Newland has more experiences（experience） than Dr.Alton in muscle healing and the first group of patients(改为因果thus the first group of patients could get) get more effective cure.

Finally, even if we concede the unwarranted assumption and the questionable evidence,  it is still a hasty generalization that all the patients with muscle strain should take antibiotics as part of their treatment without considering all the alternatives and factors. Are the antibiotics fit for all kinds of patients? What about the kids or elder(the old)? And are antibiotics harmful for pregnant women? In addition, some patients who are allergic to antibiotics should take other treatment rather than take antibiotics. In view of those alternatives, it is not a good treatment for all the patients with muscle strain to take antibiotics.

In sum, the argument is well-presented, but not throughly well-reasoned. Litter(是不是想写little) evidence is provided to support arguer's assumption and the results of a study of two group(s) of patients are not persuasive as they stand. To strengthen his recommendation, the arguer should provide more evidence to prove the causal relationship between antibiotics and reducing secondary infections and more information about two groups of patients. Before considering all the alternatives and factors carefully, the recommendation is lack of credibilities.
总的来说大错都写到了。模板套用得不错，第一次写成这样很好了。

lilumiluUID: 2332310

看到了，嗯，谢谢

还是有很多拼写错误啊，呵呵

我都快要考试了，怎么可能是第一次呢？

希望你能在逻辑和文笔上提点意见，毕竟那才是最重要的阿，加油！